I agree, sir. Fr Moyer has made an incredibly bad decision. I was actually just about to mail in membership dues to FiFNA, but I will not do so now. It is a shame. And very curious timing. I believe his consecration in TAC will take place a week BEFORE the Primates meeting in February. What were they thinking?
I agree, sir. Fr Moyer has made an incredibly bad decision. I was actually just about to mail in membership dues to FiFNA, but I will not do so now. It is a shame. And very curious timing. I believe his consecration in TAC will take place a week BEFORE the Primates meeting in February. What were they thinking?
It's a great question. But, I have to wonder where bishops will line up on this matter. It seems to me that Moyer will have no place with Bishops of the Network, relegating himself to an increasingly smaller role in the Communion.
It's a great question. But, I have to wonder where bishops will line up on this matter. It seems to me that Moyer will have no place with Bishops of the Network, relegating himself to an increasingly smaller role in the Communion.
FiFNA has noted that "the majority of FIF/NA’s members remain within the
structures of The Episcopal Church. Fr. Moyer’s election in no way affects FIF/NA’s commitment to minister to them, and to its continued and active participation in the Anglican Communion Network."
They actually believe that Network bishops are just going to ignore Fr Moyer's purple shirt at the next ACN meeting and pretend nothing has happened? Amazing.
www.titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?
p=3728
FiFNA has noted that "the majority of FIF/NA’s members remain within the
structures of The Episcopal Church. Fr. Moyer’s election in no way affects FIF/NA’s commitment to minister to them, and to its continued and active participation in the Anglican Communion Network."
They actually believe that Network bishops are just going to ignore Fr Moyer's purple shirt at the next ACN meeting and pretend nothing has happened? Amazing.
www.titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?
p=3728
Wow. Hadn't thought of that happening. Sheesh.
Wow. Hadn't thought of that happening. Sheesh.
The FIF/NA Bishops do not support Fr. Moyer's decision. We requested his resgination as our Network Dean, and he complied. We also requested his resignation as President of FIF/NA, but he is resisting.
Needless to say, TAC Bishops are not part of the Anglican Communion.
+JLI
The FIF/NA Bishops do not support Fr. Moyer's decision. We requested his resgination as our Network Dean, and he complied. We also requested his resignation as President of FIF/NA, but he is resisting.
Needless to say, TAC Bishops are not part of the Anglican Communion.
+JLI
I have no opinion about this consecration, but would comment that no one should become Roman Catholic because of the difficulties at home. The only excuse for becoming RC is that one comes to view that communion as the Church founded by Christ through the apostles and continuing His whole teaching intact and accurately today. At reception and Confirmation, one will not be asked "Did your former Church go south on you?", but rather will declare "I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God". Major difference.
I have no opinion about this consecration, but would comment that no one should become Roman Catholic because of the difficulties at home. The only excuse for becoming RC is that one comes to view that communion as the Church founded by Christ through the apostles and continuing His whole teaching intact and accurately today. At reception and Confirmation, one will not be asked "Did your former Church go south on you?", but rather will declare "I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God". Major difference.
Bishop Iker,
Thank you so much for your response. This clears up things a great deal!
Bishop Iker,
Thank you so much for your response. This clears up things a great deal!
There are a few things I don`t get.
If FiF already accepts TAC bishops as being in communion with them, why can they be so opposed to one of their priests becomming a TAC bishop? What does the relationship of intercommunion between the TAC and Forward in Faith actually mean, if a TAC bishop cannot have a ministry within Forward in Faith?
More broadly, with this in mind, what does it mean for continuing churches, such as the REC and APA, to make "common cause" with the Network?
Forward in Faith seems to be divided on how to answers these questions, and its leaders appear to be sending mixed messages.
One thing that I`m sure everyone agrees on: the next few months are going to be even more tense than usual for Anglicanism these days. Everyone involved probably can use a lot of prayer right now. We need wisdom badly.
Any thoughts?
Mike
There are a few things I don`t get.
If FiF already accepts TAC bishops as being in communion with them, why can they be so opposed to one of their priests becomming a TAC bishop? What does the relationship of intercommunion between the TAC and Forward in Faith actually mean, if a TAC bishop cannot have a ministry within Forward in Faith?
More broadly, with this in mind, what does it mean for continuing churches, such as the REC and APA, to make "common cause" with the Network?
Forward in Faith seems to be divided on how to answers these questions, and its leaders appear to be sending mixed messages.
One thing that I`m sure everyone agrees on: the next few months are going to be even more tense than usual for Anglicanism these days. Everyone involved probably can use a lot of prayer right now. We need wisdom badly.
Any thoughts?
Mike
It's really strange, and I can't say I understand it. But, what seems particularly strange is that anyone would take this sort of unilateral action without much thought as to the consequences.
It's really strange, and I can't say I understand it. But, what seems particularly strange is that anyone would take this sort of unilateral action without much thought as to the consequences.
To answer the question,
"If FiF already accepts TAC bishops as being in communion with them, why can they be so opposed to one of their priests becomming a TAC bishop?"
It's sort of like saying, "I have nothing against ------, some of my best friends are ------, but would you want your sister to marry one?"
To answer the question,
"If FiF already accepts TAC bishops as being in communion with them, why can they be so opposed to one of their priests becomming a TAC bishop?"
It's sort of like saying, "I have nothing against ------, some of my best friends are ------, but would you want your sister to marry one?"
The TAC (unlike the REC or the APC) refused to make common cause with "the Network" precisely bec. Article VIII of the Network's Charter commits both proponents and opponents of women's ordination to "honoring" the stance of the other. The TAC (wisely, IMHO) thought that it could no more "honor" the position of those who support WO than it could "honor" the stance of those who support +VGR, and there was a degree of disappointment on their part that FIFNA had joined the Network as a non-geographical "Convocation." It looks as though the tension within FIFNA over the opposed gravitational attractions of TAC and the Network (in the context, in particular, of para. 126 of the Windsor Report, and its obscure meaning[s]) could rip FIFNA apart, which seems rather sad.
The TAC (unlike the REC or the APC) refused to make common cause with "the Network" precisely bec. Article VIII of the Network's Charter commits both proponents and opponents of women's ordination to "honoring" the stance of the other. The TAC (wisely, IMHO) thought that it could no more "honor" the position of those who support WO than it could "honor" the stance of those who support +VGR, and there was a degree of disappointment on their part that FIFNA had joined the Network as a non-geographical "Convocation." It looks as though the tension within FIFNA over the opposed gravitational attractions of TAC and the Network (in the context, in particular, of para. 126 of the Windsor Report, and its obscure meaning[s]) could rip FIFNA apart, which seems rather sad.
"indecision's buggin me...
i can't tell which clothes even fit me..."
- the Clash
"indecision's buggin me...
i can't tell which clothes even fit me..."
- the Clash
As a former (12 years ago) Anglican, now Roman Catholic, who paused for a few nanoseconds to consider the TAC affiliated Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, let me offer an uninformed outside view. It seems to me that it is imprudent for Fr. Moyer to be ordained for the TAC without the support of the FIF bishops (both US and international).
That being said, I can't see the objection in principle for this move. It has been clear for some time that the goal of both FIF (at least in the UK) and the TAC is a sort of Anglican uniate status within the Roman Catholic Church. Any accomodation between these groups and the ACN is purely a tactical alliance, not a potential basis for a new communion which would be impaired ab initio. It is abundantly clear that ECUSA will not allow any sort of alternative oversight for FIF parishes, nor will solidly Anglo-Catholic bishops be allowed as ordinaries in any more dioceses. Thus, the future of Anglo-Catholicism within ECUSA is a matter
As a former (12 years ago) Anglican, now Roman Catholic, who paused for a few nanoseconds to consider the TAC affiliated Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, let me offer an uninformed outside view. It seems to me that it is imprudent for Fr. Moyer to be ordained for the TAC without the support of the FIF bishops (both US and international).
That being said, I can't see the objection in principle for this move. It has been clear for some time that the goal of both FIF (at least in the UK) and the TAC is a sort of Anglican uniate status within the Roman Catholic Church. Any accomodation between these groups and the ACN is purely a tactical alliance, not a potential basis for a new communion which would be impaired ab initio. It is abundantly clear that ECUSA will not allow any sort of alternative oversight for FIF parishes, nor will solidly Anglo-Catholic bishops be allowed as ordinaries in any more dioceses. Thus, the future of Anglo-Catholicism within ECUSA is a matter
(cont'd)
...the future of Anglo-Catholicism within ECUSA is a matter of a few years at most. In this environment, full cooperation with the TAC - including shared episcopal ministry, and joint efforts in discussions with Rome - seems to be the only way forward.
If Fr. Moyer's decision becomes a barrier to TAC / FIF cooperation, that is most unfortunate. But in the medium run, it is hard to see how TAC / FIF can move forward without these kinds of actions.
(cont'd)
...the future of Anglo-Catholicism within ECUSA is a matter of a few years at most. In this environment, full cooperation with the TAC - including shared episcopal ministry, and joint efforts in discussions with Rome - seems to be the only way forward.
If Fr. Moyer's decision becomes a barrier to TAC / FIF cooperation, that is most unfortunate. But in the medium run, it is hard to see how TAC / FIF can move forward without these kinds of actions.
I have to agree completely with what Mark C. said. It is unfortunate that there was not futher consultation between the TAC and Forward in Faith on this matter. Perhaps, because of the relatively warm reception of their proposal to consecrate Fr. Chislett in Austrailia (Forward in Faith and the primate of Australia seem happy with it) they thought that it would work in America as well. Perhaps they didn't expect this sort of backlash from Forward in Faith.
It's unfortunate, because it's an idea that could work. Both Forward in Faith and the TAC have the same goal: an orthodox Anglican province. This can't happen unless they work together. I wish the Network well, but ultimately they differ with anglo-catholic ecclesiology on many important points. It's one thing to respect one another, but if there is no confidence that a good number of the clergy are actually valid priests, how can there be true sacramental fellowship - something that the TAC and Forward in Faith
I have to agree completely with what Mark C. said. It is unfortunate that there was not futher consultation between the TAC and Forward in Faith on this matter. Perhaps, because of the relatively warm reception of their proposal to consecrate Fr. Chislett in Austrailia (Forward in Faith and the primate of Australia seem happy with it) they thought that it would work in America as well. Perhaps they didn't expect this sort of backlash from Forward in Faith.
It's unfortunate, because it's an idea that could work. Both Forward in Faith and the TAC have the same goal: an orthodox Anglican province. This can't happen unless they work together. I wish the Network well, but ultimately they differ with anglo-catholic ecclesiology on many important points. It's one thing to respect one another, but if there is no confidence that a good number of the clergy are actually valid priests, how can there be true sacramental fellowship - something that the TAC and Forward in Faith
con't:
can share with each other right now?
con't:
can share with each other right now?
Having read and re-read these comments I find it hard to imagine what FIFNA actually represents. It is opposed to WO but worrying about the views of Bishop Duncan who ordains women. Its bishops such as Iker do not provide flying bishops for beleaguered anglicans elsewhere in ECUSA but tolerate Akinola coming in and setting up his own province.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is all really about a club for bishops, with its own private masonic code of conduct. Duncan is in but Moyer is out. Akinola is in and so is Bennison. FIFNA opposes WO but prefers those who do it to those who take some positive action against it.
As confusing as the rules of cricket. (When you are in you go out. When you are out you come in....)
God bless FIFNA and the Network. They will still be fiddling when they have run out of adherents.
Late post for your amusement - as in New Directions.
America may not have the kind of Catholic Movement that England does, but it does have some fine catholic parishes, to name several: Advent, Boston, St. Paul’s, K Street, Washington D.C., Mount Calvary, Baltimore, S. Clement’s, Philadelphia and, of course, Good Shepherd, Rosemount. And, as all the world knows, Good Shepherd now has a Bishop as their Rector in the person of Fr. David Moyer, SSC. On the night of his consecration the church was packed and this shouldn’t be surprising, because Fr. Moyer is respected as a loving pastor who has made a principled stand for the Faith. That he has done so against considerable odds and at no little cost to himself is, I think, agreed upon by most traditionalists. Accordingly, Good Shepherd was full to the brim on February 16th as Fr. Moyer and Fr. Chislett were consecrated as Bishops in the Traditional Anglican Communion and licensed as Assistant Bishops of The Murray, in the Church of Australia, by Bishop Ross Davies. After the moving ceremony everyone was treated to a reception in the Parish Hall, where they were able to make good use of specially minted napkins, tastefully embossed for the occasion with golden miters and crosiers. Before too long, the new Bishops appeared with their new Chief, Archbishop Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), resplendent in purple cassocks and birettas, a stirring sight.
Stirring indeed, but, as more than one person was heard to exclaim, “What does it mean?” In the first instance, that TAC is up by two Bishops, along with the Diocese of The Murray and that ECUSA, presumably, is down by one Rector who had been deposed anyway. Here things get a little complicated; The Murray is part of the Anglican Communion, TAC is not, but perhaps it is because two of its Bishops are part of The Murray. This means that Bishop Moyer can’t be deposed for “abandonment of communion,” at least in the broader sense, because he hasn’t left it, except that he has at the local level, in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. So February 16th gives us something of a conundrum, a TAC Bishop who is out of communion with ECUSA remaining in charge of an ECUSA parish, all the while being an Assisting Bishop of an Australian Diocese in communion with Canterbury. I fear the question still remains, “What does it mean?” And this question raises another, which perhaps serves to clarify the issue.
Concentrating only on the American factor, we have to ask whom Bishop Moyer will serve and who will allow him to do so. We know one thing for certain and only one, namely, that Bishop Moyer will be able to serve the TAC and its U.S. subsidiary, the Anglican Church in America (ACA), led by Archbishop Falk. This much is sure, the rest is unclear. Bishop Moyer may be able to serve orthodox parishes within the Network, or he might not. Again, and with decreasing likelihood, he may be able to serve orthodox parishes in more hostile ECUSA dioceses, but
Commenting by HaloScan
